Coming up this evening at 9, "Piers Morgan Tonight" invites Reince Priebus to offer his political analysis and expertise on the country's current budget battle as America moves inside of 35 days until the pending "Fiscal Cliff."

Joining Piers Morgan for his first interview since seeing GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney lose the general election, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee listens, and then reacts, as the host offered his analysis of the party perspective:

"You Republicans, led by Grover Norquist, are absolutely intransigent about allowing any raise in taxation," said Morgan, referencing the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, who appeared on the program Monday evening.

"First of all, there's a lot of things that you said there, that aren't true," comes Priebus' response.

"Well name one," challenges Morgan, looking for specifics.

"No one is opposed to increasing revenues by closing some loopholes," offers the guest.

The host, however, remembers it differently:

"That wasn't what I said! Now hang on! That wasn't, that was not what I said," he exclaims. "You can't put words in my mouth. You said what I said wasn't true. And then you gave a completely different answer, to what I actually said."

soundoff(44 Responses)

Griff.

"Well Pierse, Coop of 360 gave up his seat so easy to Blitzer, so just how easy is it for a Yank to steal your throne??
All I ask is answers and when I don't get a substancial reply, I try again the next day. I'm asked to drop a comment
but not to be brou beaten into submission!"

Piers looked like a Demo Spokesperson tonight!? No fair and balanced here! I think the greatest point that was made tonight was that you could take every penny of profit fromt he Fortune 500 and it would run the US Gov for 6 months; i.e., taxing millionaires is NOT going to get us out of the hole we are in...It was a BS campaign slogan, but really spending is the problem ...Wished that Piers could have followed up on that line of thinking and stopped hacking on more taxes as the solution!! We need spending solutions, and can not take enough from the "Rich" to solve our problems.

I'm actually against relying on the government to create jobs. They should tax, and then, in turn, invest in new business and growth business like we did with the reinvestment and refinancing corporation back in the 30s...

Pierse – I just saw the discussion between you and Priebus. My reaction to Priebus was 'does he listen to anything? Given facts, figures, statistics, a real plan laid out on television from the president that suggests mixed spending cuts and taxation – and yet, he didn't respond to any of that. It was lke he was droning on and on about the same damn thing over and over, without changing his stance whatsoever – even given reports to the contrary. It was absolutely abysmally mind-numbing, and no wonder the democrats cannot agree with the republicans – they can't even have a meaningful conversation to start with these people.....

Piers, please STOP interrupting your guests!!! You ask a question and then constantly interrupt so that it is impossible to hear or understand what the person is saying. Your biases don't belong on the program when you're interviewing someone who probably knows more than you do on the subject. Stick to interviewing and quit interrupting. I really enjoy your show, but I'll switch to another channel when you start interjecting your ideas while a person is trying to speak!!!!!

In general I would agree with you Sandra but when an interviewee is not answering the question the person doing the interview must turn into Larry King or a Fox News Republican apologist. Thankfully we have Piers along with some others..both liberal and conservative, that put their feet to the fire.

Piers, How did you ever get your job when you can't follow a basic conversation? The man is telling you over and over that the Obama administration has put forth no comprehensive budget in the last 4 years. If they have one, they have not made it public. You should be grilling an Obama admin. rep about where the hell is their plan to deal with the complex issues of the day. I don't think your guest could have been more clear and correct in his statements.

Bravo mr Klein, your are correct with Mr Morgan preferences, he is sooo liberal it gets me feeling a bit quesy ... why does'nt he go back to England and have tea and crimpets with the Queen,,,, we have enought American liberals here in old GOOD USA .. SO TIRED OF THE LEFT WINGED BRAINWASHERS on CNN ...

I have a suggestion if you think Piers is dumb: Go to bbc.co.uk/news and read over the news comments there. It wouls appear as if the British are smarter than Americans. *cringes* LOL!! Piers is actually an intellectual – rest of you all get -1 points for not doing your homework... duh, bah,

BTW – running the government from taxing fortune 500 companies: spent 3.5 trillion, Q2 2012 corporate profits were 1.6 trillion. Taking that as making the exact same amount every quarter, that puts corporate profits at 6.4 trillion for the year of 2012. This means that roughly half of all corporate profits alone, discluding all other forms of government revenue, could run the government for the full year of 2012. Do your research on the numbers before listening to these republicans saying we can't increase taxes. Keep in mind that most of this 'profit' by corporations go to the owners, i.e. major shareholders, CEOs, and other executives. Priebus & Repub argument = PLZ R U KIDDING ME????

Priebus is no "Genius" & as regards taxing those over $250.000...Mr President, just "Do it" & call their bluff. If they pull out of the country slam another 47% tax on their estate. Then immediately give an amnesty to them to pay up on the tax they have avoided paying over the years, by say six month's & then if they still have not paid it, go after them with the full force of the law & charge them by the day interest of 10% on all outstanding monies owed to the US tax-man till they pay their dues. then also, set fines in motion & even set a prison term for those still trying to avoid same. It's time everyone was on an even pitch...& were all playing ball fairly.

They done the same here in Ireland 10/15 years ago & raised a "Fortune". Time to go after the "Tax-dodgers" there by doing the same. I mean, it's only fair if "it's one for all & all for one" isn't it?!

As for Carole Roth, she mouths a lot of "Froth" for her own rich buddies on this issue!

There is a lot of historical evidence on how to manage taxes properly. When are we going to learn from history? This is on the record for most of the last 6000 years, and irrefutibly clear over the last 150 years. The income tax was introduced ostensibly to tax the rich. Being rich is a function of wealth, not income. With the Depression the rich were taxed over 90%, which inspired them to transform their "income" into "investments" which effectively made them richer than before, produced jobs, repaired the infrastructure, added factories, and ended deficits because circulating money means more tax revenues.
Reducing income tax on the rich means they pocket the money rather than hide it in investments. We want the rich to avoid taxes strategically for everyone's benefit. And don't pretend the rich spend their money, because that and power are what they horde. A working person spends all their money to survive and have a few luxuries, where a wealthy person spends an imperceptible fraction on survival. Other than tax avoidance, the only other way to inspire them to invest is when they absolutely must to keep up with demand–which means the poor need more money to spend. Taxing the rich allows the government to invest in infrastructure which creates jobs and makes cities attractive to new factories. People got rich when the rate was at 90%, and the middle class grew more than any other period of history. Buffett is right: We should return to that rate.

I could not have said it better George. It is time we stand up for what is right and stop the lobbyist and greedy from destroying the American Dream and standard of living we all knew in the middle of last century.

The rich should focus less on contirbuting to charities, and more on increasing salaries and wages for the people who work for them. Likewise, they should decrease the price of their goods and services to be more affordable. The middle class doesn't want charity. They want good jobs and low prices.

yes, yes, yes – guys. Time to state Buffet is right, back in the 40s-70s we taxed the rich up to 70%, and everyone benefitted. Also, invest – don't spend. And yes, charities and donations only provide the most temporary form of relief. People need lasting income – not a one-time handout...

Piers Morgan,
What business have you got, as a fricken Brit, telling us how to run our economy? Take a close look at all of Europe and see what Socialistic policies have done for them. Is that why you"re in America? The Demorats need to reduce spending and reform medicare and social security and then......and only then, should the Republicans be ready to include any tax hikes. Until that happens, let's go off that cliff and see YOUR president handle all the mess that comes from economic collapse. I really wish that would happen........it would be interesting...........

Morgan,I challenge you to answer two simple questions on your show after you research them: 1. If you were to raise the marginal tax rates on the top 1% of income earners to the Clinton era rates that you say worked great, how long would that run our federal government? 2. Why couldn't Obama even get his tax plan passed in his first two years when Dems controlled both houses of Congress? Then go back and watch your ignorant rants based on Dems talking points and no facts whatsoever. Go home to your own country if you don't like it here!

Reince Priebus has to come to grips with reality. I hope he is in reality far more intelligent than his words make him appear. It is soo easy to verify that the surpluses under Clinton were real even without including social security revenues. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ Call him on it. If he is willing to be a guest on your show, he needs to be willing to take the heat. I wonder though, if he has such trouble understanding numbers and reality, if it is possible to have an intelligent conversation with him. Is it the responsible thing to do to have a guest that you know will lie? When you see someone like this is leader of the GOP, is it any surprise that they are becoming a smaller niche party.

Pierce, you really showed enormous bias in your first two interviews on the fiscal cliff tonight. You went hard at Reince, stating over and over again the democratic talking points on taxing the rich, citing over and over again a CNN Poll – give me a break. This would have been fine, however when the WH economic advisor came up you provided softball after softball question with a completely different tone. Why not ask the WH economic advisor where the American People can read the President's plan. Why not ask about the recommendations of the Bowles Simpson Debt commitee. Instead – you asked questions that were very agreeable to the known position of the WH. Shame on you. You do your viewers a huge dis-service. You did not give them an opportunity to hear both sides be challenged so that they could make an informed decision. You are not a journalist.

Reince Priebus is yet again another Republican that wants to convince the American public that Obama is only offering a one solution answer to the fiscal problem by raising taxes on the top 2%. They desperately want to ignore Obama's pre and post election position that we must take a BALANCED approach : we must increase revenues and we must cut spending . Priebus argues that he hasn't seen Obana's plan. Well the Congressional Budget Office has already analyzed that plan and accepted it. While they believe it may be a bit optimistic they verify that it would cut the debt by 4 trillion dollars over 10 years. Conversely the CBO said that they could not evaluate the Romney /Ryan plan because it lacked sufficient detail. However they stated that there were not enough loopholes to close the deficit. Perhaps Priebus is not high enough in the food chain to have access to the CBO. .

"Just one more of the many drops I make! 'Who is Hongera Obama? He/She lives in Kenya, but when I try a futher search on the web it is denied. "Is He/She related to the guy in the whitehouse? Brother Sister??"

dont americans get tired of fighting among themselves? Even underdeveloped countries close ranks after an election. Mr Priebus is still talking in campaign mode. Have him on some more and he will kill your program, Mr Piers Morgan, cos cant stand it anymore, gotta switch channel.

btw, the republicans on today's program keep on saying like a broken recorder that taxing the rich will not solve the deficit despite Piers Morgan reiterating that this is on top of spending cuts. A balanced approach. What izit that they simply dont get about these 3 words. If their talking point is that the additional revenue will not be significant, then why dont they jus accede instead of holding everything hostage?? The argument to hold out is jus not rational. The issues have been put forth during the election, and the debate is over with the election.

Until liberals understand some basic economic principals, it would in fact be impossible for conservatives to make any sense to them. Liberals think that the economic pie is a fixed size and has to be divided 'fairly' on that basis. Conservatives know that, with the proper ingredients, you can bake a bigger economic pie. Once you do that, the same percentage slice of that pie will translate into more pie for you and your family. A 'balanced' approach is necessary but both the President/Liberals and the Republicans have drawn a line in the sand. That line will never be in the same place until everyone understands that the most important ingredient in a true economic recovery is growth. The math doesn't work any other way, yet liberals think conservatives have lost their marbles when, in fact, they have simply done the math (generally something that is not the strong suit of a liberal). Growth is not possible when we over-tax, over-regulate, and over-sue. If you want less of something, tax it more (cigarettes); if you want more of something, tax it less. If you want more jobs, tax job creators less. If you want less self sufficient citizens with the dignity it provides, tax it more. Remove incentive to that which creates what you want and it will never materialize. If you want less dependency on foreign energy and the crippling effect of sending trillions of dollars to Middle Eastern economies helping them create jobs for their people, encourage American energy producers by reducing regulations and taxes, and you will recirculate those trillions in our economy, create jobs, reduce energy costs, and allow us to stay out of their part of the world militarily. If conservatives seem dumbfounded by liberals right now, it is because they are. It is time for all to debate these crucial issues armed with the facts, not talking points faxed every morning from their parties. Wake up America because soon it will be too late to recover. When personality conflict exists, try to focus on what is right, not who is right. I submit that if you were to compile an objective list of key elements of the issues honestly absent any party affiliation, a much larger % of Liberals would choose solutions that conservatives are talking about. Conservatives and liberals are not devils. It's time to do what is right and not worry about who is right.

Teach liberals economics? The last I looked liberals have three Nobel prize winners consulting on economics. They basically are all DEMND side economists. Supply side is dead totally. Republican idoits just don't get it.

@Jeff: I'll simply quote Muse to answer your theory of economics – keep in mind this is just a muse, and I have studied economics quite extensively. So have the folks at project-syndicate.org. Most of us argue that given this systemic collapse ever-growinig, perhaps capitalism has indeed run its full course unless a correction is made. Here are the lyrics – I find them quite interesting...

All natural and technological processes proceed in such a way that the availability of the remaining energy decreases.
In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves an isolated system, the entropy of that system increases.

Energy continuously flows from being concentrated, to becoming dispersed, spread out, wasted and useless.
New energy cannot be created and high grade energy is being destroyed. An economy based on endless growth is...
(Unsustainable!)
...
The fundamental laws of thermodynamics will place fixed limits on technological innovation and human advancement.
In an isolated system the entropy can only increase. A species set on endless growth is.. Usustainable!
...
You're usustainable. (Meaning putting more and more pressure and taking away more and more from the middle class, given that we cannot grow, are not growing, and for the last 40 years given the current system all growth has gone to the top 2% – this closed system of human energy will only grow usustainably to civil war and revolution – all across the western world.)

Since I'm sure you probably don't know what I mean just by the song lyrics, take a look at the following:
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/editor-blog/164/is-the-quest-for-endless-economic-and-population-growth-sustainable
Growth is unsustainable in any species in nature – you cannot overpopulate a limited resource area. This is commonly known to hunters in the 21st century – there is a need for hunting, otherwise some game will overpopulate and then lead itself to a mass die-off.
The same is true of other limited resources – money, wood, gas, oil, energy, etc. You cannot have endless growth in a system that has finite resources.
It is siimply a law of nature.
But what else is a law of nature? When you back a species into a corner, when you force them to survive in a smaller and smaller box, in an isolated system, crises points force them to evolve in order to survive. Back a lion into a corner, and he is sure to fight back. Back a human into a corner, and you can expect the same. As we are at a crises point in the form of our ideology of Capitalism, our capitalist structure is in collapse – this is not a cyclical problem anymore – it's structural. As such, we will need to evolve beyond pure capitalism, which we say is doomed from the start of its study just by favoring an elitist system, in which the few have the means to financially strap the many at any point in time, a system in which the supply side feeds the demand side which, in turn, goes back to supply in a cyclical pattern – pure capitalism without the right regulations in place to control normal human behavior is a failing system automatically.

If we are to evolve our society past this crises point, we must find new ways of doing things, which unfortunately for you Joe, means we must explore new forms of economic systems and societal systems.

Look at it this way – the more strain everyone except the rich is placed on them in this society, the more energy is built up. The more energy that is built up in a system, the more explosive the reaction. This is a lesson in historical oppression.

There are real answers to these problems. As I pointed out, corporate profits in the US alone can completely run the government – without income tax, medicare tax, etc. Just corporate profits. We have evidence over centuries of study that shows progressively taxing the rich benefits not only the consumer, but the rich as well – by having a more sustainable system. This goes back to the cyclical pattern I described. Why then can't we at least put taxation back to Clinton-era taxes? It's not that difficultl.

Also, class warfare is too easy for the rich, because they control all monetary flow of money. The only way they can lose is through civil unrest, the outcome of such action is the complete collapse of the economy, and here we are yet again seeing this in an elitist society – a complete, albeit slowly and gracefully falling, systemic collapse. Where does anybody come out winning?

In other words, all these data points and the reactions by governments and other leaders, suggests that this will only result in massive civil unrest. We are not applying the correct solutions to the problem, for the most part, in each western nation. I'll give France kudos.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.